[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/an/ - Animals & Nature - Stop Kendall Jones sport hunting!

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

File: 1.jpg-(387 KB, 605x960)
Stop Kendall Jones sport...
Stop Kendall Jones sport hunting! Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:12 UTC+1 No.1663429 Report

I'm posting another pic of Kendall Jones with one of her many victims, this time FB page included n case you want to contact her. Let's do what we can to stop her, guys. The world is losing one elephant every 15 minutes, they will extinct in 15-20 years, and she's killing them for sport.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:21 UTC+1 No.1663435 Report

Don't give a fuck babby.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:34 UTC+1 No.1663440 Report

I'd let her hunt me any day.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:36 UTC+1 No.1663441 Report

Already corrected you multiple times.

Trophy hunting does not harm the population, they pay big money which is used to help the population.

Their intentions do not matter, it does not matter whether they only see those animals as trophies, it doesn't matter how little or much they care, they are paying money to shoot those animals and the money is used well.

Trophy hunters do more for the environment than you do, and more than you ever will, whether they want it or care about it or not.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:57 UTC+1 No.1663457 Report

>>1663429

But you do realize hunters actually help ecosystems more than you? A lot of the animals she's hunting are far from endangered, and are actually damaging the eco systems with high numbers. And even the ones that are endangered - are still high in numbers in their location and damaging the ecosystem. So if you don't kill off a few animals - you get loss of eco system - and then absolutely NO animals...

I think people watch too many documentaries about the 'harsh life in Africa' and think every animal that comes from Africa is like Noah's ark with only 2 of every kind left. Zebras, the majority of the big cats she's hunted, rams, hogs, wild cattle, deer etc. are not even close to extinct..

And she donates all the meat collected from these animals to poor communities in Africa.. I don't see how it's a loss at all. She also donates the hides for clothing, and so on.. Nothing is wasted.

We don't know the premise behind shooting the elephant. That one pisses me off a bit, but it could of been old,sick, or injured beyond help. But it's all under the same thing also. Which is to conserve. It's not like shes shooting hundreds and thousands like that 'the only good wolf is a dead wolf' guy. That guy is fucked.

http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/conservation/africawildlifemanagement maybe this will help a bit.

you just shouldnt be so ignorant because there is a dead animal, that everyone thinks is 'pwetty'.

The only thing I think is fucked about these hunters (all of the online ones that 'get big') is the fact they need to show their kill to people. I don't like the fact they think it's okay to put mutilated animals on their Facebook pages and then mock them. It's just ego stroking and it's pretty fucked up imo.

Thats just my thought. i know a lot of people will jump on it thinking im some devil messiah, but im not even a hunter, nor have i killed anything but mice in my home.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:11 UTC+1 No.1663469 Report

>>1663429
she pays to kill elephants

most people get paid to kill elephants
Hell, I'd kill the shit out of an elephant to get that sweet ass ivory
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:14 UTC+1 No.1663471 Report

>>1663441
>>1663457

This.

OP, why don't you get angry about people who actually create an issue with hunting? Why bitch about this rich white girl legally and directly helping the animals she shoots? They're all mature animals who have already had the chance to reproduced, the money goes to conservation, the meat and hides go to the poor, and she isn't doing it without strict constraints or in excess.

There are poachers who are murdering any endangered animals they find to grind their bones and horns into worthless medicine. They leave the mostly unused carcass to rot, and kill multiple animals daily with no limitations. Why aren't you complaining of them or putting in effort to stop them?

Do some research and don't fall for the first sensationalist, emotionally driven story you see online. She's done far more for their conservation than you ever will.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:41 UTC+1 No.1663488 Report

>>1663457
>We don't know the premise behind shooting the elephant. That one pisses me off a bit, but it could of been old,sick, or injured beyond help.
Or it could have been dangerous, not just to humans but to other elephants. I know that herds in protected areas will sometimes need to have a member taken out, usually a male in rut, because they're dangerous or causing damage somehow.

It's not like they just let people shoot any elephant they want. A lot of the animals get targeted for a reason.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:44 UTC+1 No.1663490 Report

>>1663471
Well, first of all you don't know who I am, what organization I work with, how much money we're donating, and what we're actually doing for the environment, so your first comment is completely useless.

Second, if you join any reputable conservation organization, like the David Sheldrick Foundation, the Amboselli Trust, or the Jane Goodall Organization, they will all confirm that hunting is the single biggest threat to endangered animals today. The only ones who try to sell the idea that trophy hunting endangered animals is good for the population are the sadistic hunters themselves. They bribe poor governments and communities to have access to their lands, and the poor will do anything for money, including slaughter their own elephants for ivory (which the world markets are slamming down hard).

The reason why we even have an endangered species list is because of hunting to begin with. I'm educated enough about the issue to know that conservation by hunting is bull shit. The single greatest threat facing the planet is humanity with its "conservation" efforts. Thanks to human conservation, we no longer have the Dodo, the Western Black Rhino, the giant crocodiles, and we are losing the last of the great tusked elephants. The Nambian Desert Elephants are on the brink of extinction due to hunting. So spare me. I am not a newbie that gets emotional about a cute animals; I am daily educated about the current status of wildlife, and statistics are showing that human intervention, especially with guns, is causing more problems than solutions.

I suppose it comes down to what your sources are - the hunting conservation sites, or reputable wildlife organizations. When you look at the statistics and the endangered species list and what their biggest threats are, hunting pops up at the very top. An elephant does not die every 15 minutes because it gets the flue; it does because it gets shot. I don't know how much more idiot proof I can make this.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:45 UTC+1 No.1663491 Report

>>1663429
Trophy hunters don't endanger African wildlife.
Morally you can disagree with them - so do I - but you can't do anything about it other than expressing your distaste.

The real threat to animals is poachers, and we talk about people who try to feed themselves and their families desperately, so they will give 0 fucks about rhinos, elephants, etc.
Trophy hunters want animals to keep existing so they can kill them.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:52 UTC+1 No.1663498 Report

>>1663490
OP you must be a great reader. I'm astonished, you must make the folks at /lit/ look like imbeciles.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:59 UTC+1 No.1663501 Report

>>1663490
>Well, first of all you don't know who I am
Does not matter, unless you're donating ten thousands of dollars on your own you're doing less.
>they will all confirm that hunting is the single biggest threat to endangered animals today
Because hunting includes poaching, which doesn't benefit the population.
>The only ones who try to sell the idea that trophy hunting endangered animals is good for the population are the sadistic hunters themselves.
Not really, trophy hunters are generally retarded douchebags that do it for kicks, that doesn't take away that their actions are beneficial to the population.
>They bribe poor governments and communities to have access to their lands
No one is being bribed here, there's services for this
>and the poor will do anything for money
The poor benefit from them doing this too, so they won't go ahead and poach animals.
>The reason why we even have an endangered species list is because of hunting to begin with
You don't seem to realize how wide the spectrum of 'hunting' is.

Rest of your post isn't even worth replying to.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:02 UTC+1 No.1663502 Report

>>1663490
>Thanks to human conservation, we no longer have the Dodo
So an animal that went extinct in the late 1600s to the early 1700s had conservation efforts? The dodo went extinct because they were fearless of humans and were flightless thus making them easy food for sailors in Mauritius. That and combined with the dogs and cats they brought there killed them off. No human conservation efforts were made. Clearly you're not educated on the subject at all. Stop before you make yourself look more foolish
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:15 UTC+1 No.1663509 Report

>>1663429
not your personal army

this girl is hot
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:30 UTC+1 No.1663513 Report

>>1663490
>you don't know who I am

Statistically, you aren't donating as much as her. Do you personally donate hundreds of thousands of dollars of your EARNED money? If you don't, you aren't. You're also wasting your time complaining of one woman instead of focusing on a larger issue: poaching. So, no, it isn't out of line for me to assume you aren't helping as much as her. You know nothing about priority.

>they will all confirm that hunting is the single biggest threat to endangered animals today.

No, that's poaching. Have you even gone on the websites? Each of them state that poaching is the worst threat. There is no comparison between the ethics of poaching and regulated hunting.

>The only ones who try to sell the idea that trophy hunting endangered animals is good for the population are the sadistic hunters themselves.

Are biologists and professionals "sadistic hunters"?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00034.x/full

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029332

Is "Save the Rhino" an evil hunting site?

http://www.savetherhino.org/rhino_info/thorny_issues/trophy_hunting

What about WWF? IWMC?
http://wwf.panda.org/?14073/hunting-for-conservation
http://www.iwmc.org/elephant/981127.htm

>They bribe poor governments and communities to have access to their lands, and the poor will do anything for money, including slaughter their own elephants for ivory

Don't see any reputable sources on this, or it relating to regulated hunting. Also, the remains of the animals are donated, not sold on the black market like poachers do. Try again.

>I am not a newbie that gets emotional about a cute animals

Yes you are. If you weren't, you would be able to see the pros and cons of this. Instead, it’s just “KILLING ENDANGERED ANIMALS IS BAD”. You think in black and white terms, and aren't focusing on the real issues. So, yes, you’re illogical newbie who is emotionally driven towards cute animals.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:34 UTC+1 No.1663517 Report

>>1663501
I'm not even going to bother with your response.... I'm getting the exact opposite reaction on other forums with mindful people who actually want to make a positive contribution to the world. We also have two petitions, one with 35K signatures, and another with almost 200K. And if you doubt their impact, google recent animal welfare victories. We're getting things done.

As for the dodo, you strawmanned my position - my point was in regards to human intervention, or lack of. I used the word "conservation" with pun.

And if you want to learn about the ethics of your views, I suggest listening to some Sam Harris and Peter Singer. Watch Singer's debate with Dawkins, get up to speed with modern ethics, and then do something (other than trolling) to make this world a slightly better place:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-WcnqUwLM
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:37 UTC+1 No.1663521 Report

>>1663490
>>1663513

Continued.


>Thanks to human conservation, we no longer have the Dodo
...what? You can't honestly believe that. Seriously. Read a single source on the dodo and what killed them.

>The Nambian Desert Elephants are on the brink of extinction due to hunting.
It's status was created by bad hunting practices in the 1900s. Now it's being perpetuated by poachers. You're strawmanning this, too. They aren't being killed by these hunting agencies to a any notable degree, and if they are (like the black rhino was), it comes with a GIANT bill that would make a huge difference for the species.
Here! A link by a reputable wildlife conservation source that says it helps to hunt NBE!

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/namib_desert/

>One unique way of protecting Namibia's biodiversity has been through the WWF-supported conservancy movement... Any profit generated by the conservancy's activities - guide services, eco-tourist facilities or controlled hunting - is invested back into the community.

>The reason why we even have an endangered species list is because of hunting to begin with.
Yep. And priorities change. Now the issue is poaching, which is basically what 20th century hunting was. You're warping a definition, then repeating it. Regulated hunting isn't poaching in any way.

>the hunting conservation sites, or reputable wildlife organizations.
You obviously haven't been looking at any sources. Anything reputable and not emotionally driven says it's a worthwhile step, and it just needs more regulation in order for it to become even better. It isn't perfect, but it has saved numerous species from extinction, and is greatly helping them. The sources you sent me said absolutely nothing about regulated hunting, either.

>An elephant does not die every 15 minutes because it gets the flue; it does because it gets shot.
By poachers, you child.

I recommend you learn some reading comprehension, prioritization, and scientific evaluation skills.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:42 UTC+1 No.1663524 Report

>>1663517
> I'm getting the exact opposite reaction on other forums with mindful people who actually want to make a positive contribution to the world.

Enjoy your hugbox of ignorance.

>We also have two petitions, one with 35K signatures, and another with almost 200K

That's fucking hilarious. Do you really think getting a bunch of emotional 10 year olds to sign a petition is comparable to the huge amount of money (in the MILLIONS) that hunters pay to kill African animals?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:43 UTC+1 No.1663525 Report

Wasn't the Ibex goat saved by hunting?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:51 UTC+1 No.1663529 Report

>>1663457
>>1663491
Its not justificable by any means.
Hunters have already fucktons money to Buy their big arms, ammunition, wear, outdoors items, tickets to travel around the world just for fun shooting wild animals. And then they fucking pay to kill them for stupid egomaniacal reasons.

If they really are so caregivers and "MUH BIG CHARITY LABOR" why doesnt just give away money to people who REALLY care about ecosystems restoration and animals balance.
Why do they even feel the URGENCY to kill the beast in a fashion so artifically and unrelated manner to ancient times??, That girl in the OP post says that she donates the hunt to poor people in africa... wow, how sweet. much compassion, why she doesn't better just give them away the money if so?? but NO, still want to post her pics on fb like all sluts who cry for attention...

Also I dont really known how the fuck this hunting method gonna assure the balance of populations if poaching is still the major problem and not all poblations are supervised, the supply rate of animals to legaly kill probably cannot reach the demand, because maturation of organism take long time and fucktons of caring, and by consecuense collapsing this entire bullshit system.

I just really dont understad the entire harm thing, just fucking observe it, learn from it, admire them... if you really need to stay close, use properly sedants to aproach and examine, and do whatever you want without harming the animal.

Yes I MAD.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:58 UTC+1 No.1663533 Report

>>1663513
Your sources demonstrate that a portion of the money goes to help conservation... How about donating that money without killing, the effect would be the same, minus some dead animals. There are plenty of organizations that are doing just that, collecting donations and raising funds for conservation without selling the animals to sports hunters.

As for bribing - governments accepting money to give access to their animals is a form of bribery. Towns accepting thousands of dollars to assist in these hunts, are bribery. It's legal bribery in the guise of a "service", but never the less the fact is that we have poor people accepting money from rich people in exchange for hunting permits.

As for your sources, read more, it's not so clear cut:

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/5-reasons-trophy-hunting-is-not-conservation/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/11/trophy-hunting-africa

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130802-lions-trophy-hunting-extinction-opinion-animals-africa-conservation/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_n1p_intl_ot_w#

It comes down who's conducting the study and who's making the money. Organizations who are not getting paid for a service, or who are not accepting the money as a second option, demonstrate less conflict of interest.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:00 UTC+1 No.1663535 Report

Fuck off with this gay personal army shit. What do you even want us to do? Making hashtags and angry posts on social media doesn't actually accomplish anything. Go hunt her down and kill her if you feel so strongly about it.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:00 UTC+1 No.1663536 Report

>>1663524
Like I said, google the victories. We just got the Prime Minister of India to release temple elephants with petitions alone. Granted, we got celebrity coverage and worldwide exposure, but it got done. Now laws and regulations are being changed all over India for temple animals. Petitions work, I see it multiple times a day. Google activist victories if you want to becomes aware.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:02 UTC+1 No.1663538 Report

>>1663529
Well they aren't doing it to be caregivers
It's fine you don't like them - but everyone has already told you the same things and you won't read the links

> why doesnt just give away money to people who REALLY care about ecosystems restoration and animals balance.
Because they aren't doing it for ecosystem restoration, it's not what motivates them - it's just they aren't doing as much harm as you think they are
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:03 UTC+1 No.1663540 Report

There's a reason the previous thread got deleted.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:06 UTC+1 No.1663542 Report

>>1663533
>NO!
>We must preserve Bloodlust
>Cannot fathom compassion
>Must embrace carnage just beacuse.
>MUH PRIORITY to display ego pictures on facebook

The world is so fucked up.
This system is wrong and you know it.
If this method really works why dont just make legal the hunting of gorillas for money??
The money in this situation doesn't solve any shit at all
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:09 UTC+1 No.1663544 Report

>>1663535
Don't do it it if you don't feel it, but I can confirm that petitions, tweet storms, and action on Fb and other online forums work. Google Sunder the elephant. We signed a whole bunch of petitions over a year ago, tweeted, shared, until Paul McCartney, Pam Anderson, and some Bollywood starts got on board, and last month the Prime Minister of India along with the High Court ordered the abused elephant to be released. Now he's safe with Peta India and we are doing the same for other elephants, with letters, tweets, and petitions. This set a new precedent for temple elephants and temple animals and is revising India's laws about animal welfare. All because of stubborn animal rights activists who cared enough.

So if this issue is important to you, tweet about it, share her page, sign petitions, and so on. If not, then I understand. But petitions and online activism do work, for some causes easier than for others, so it's worth getting involved if you want to change something.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:11 UTC+1 No.1663545 Report

>>1663457
>even the ones that are endangered - are still high in numbers in their location and damaging the ecosystem.

Normally, when a specie is listed as endangered it is GLOBALLY endangered (in the case of , african elephants, just in Africa,obviously). But in countries where hunting said species is legal like Botswana I assume that the conservation status is acceptable (Lower risk), while in others the population is in more danger. And that happens with a lot of species.

So,wouldn't be more logical to introduce individuals from the overpopulated zone in the barely populated one rather than hunting them?

Also, >>1663429 , Elephant hunting is an important source of money in those contries (imagine how much money costs to hunt a single one). If elephants go extinct so goes the money governments recieve, so I guess they'll do as much as possible to preserve them since they are profitable (I don't like the idea though, but what else do we have). The popularity of the specie helps too.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:11 UTC+1 No.1663546 Report

hey OP, why not just make a blog and turn comments off, you obviously didn't want any kind of discussion. Your unwillingness to become informed is rather troubling. Here in the united states, most of the non-developed land is funded by hunting and fishing licenses and would not exist without hunting and fishing. The first people in the conservation movement were hunters trying to maintain a healthy herd of animals to harvest from. There is no shame in getting something wrong, we've all been there...but learn from your mistakes, by doing so you might make contacts who could actually help you, help the animals you claim to care so deeply about, rather than shaming one individual...which reflects poorly on you and your cause.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:17 UTC+1 No.1663550 Report

>>1663542
Hell I'm all for the killing of all wild populations of gorillias and chimps.
Think of all the money we spent on fighting AIDS, is it really worth it to keep them around?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:23 UTC+1 No.1663554 Report

>>1663550
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/

look at what they do! They'll destroy everything.

We have a chance now. We can get them before they get us.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:41 UTC+1 No.1663560 Report

>>1663533
>Your sources demonstrate that a portion of the money goes to help conservation... How about donating that money without killing, the effect would be the same, minus some dead animals.

Well, that's not how the world works. At all. People aren't going to donate the same amount if they don't get something in return. The world isn't a magical place where rich hunters will donate millions of dollars to conservation efforts to just look at lions. That's just how life is. It isn't perfect, and there are no Disney ending answers to important issues. You are lobbying for something based on feelings, instead of looking at what the hunting is PAST face value.

One specifically chosen dead animal makes little different when done correctly, and the $100,000 fee to hunt makes a GIANT change. Animals have been saved from extinction by hunting like this. Why are you ignoring this fact?

Once again: why aren't you outraged about poachers? They're the ones who are extincting species. These hunters are helping tremendously, with some negativity added. Poachers are completely bad, and kill a VAST number of animals. THEY are worthy of outrage. Prioritization is key to seeing ANY change in anything.

>As for bribing - governments accepting money to give access to their animals is a form of bribery.
I don't see any sources on this, and even then, I don't see how it's that bad if it's done properly. Also, what's wrong with using legitimate hunting services, like Kendall does? Strawman.


All of your sources are also emotionally driven and black and white. The only decent point in any of those sources is that a some lion hunting organizations have small fractions that go back to the conservation. This doesn't reflect on all hunting organizations. You are ignoring the animals that have been saved by extinction because of this. The issue was also touched on my sources; there needs to be more regulation, but it is at a great start.

Also
>quoting The Guardian as a source ever
hah
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:00 UTC+1 No.1663573 Report

>>1663560
It is how the world works. Look up the Amboselli Trust, David Sheldrick Foundation, Leonardo DiCaprio's Foundations, Kiva.org - there are tons of people donating money without any interest other than to help. DiCaprio just donated $7 million to clean up the oceans - what is he getting in return other than a warm fuzzy feeling?

The point is that there are tons of better methods and organizations that are more practical and ethical who are doing much more for conservation without killing. Doesn't society have an ethical obligation to support them instead? Because by doing so we minimize the collateral (dead animal) and we get the same things done more ethically and by ethical people who are doing this without any sadistic interest.

As for poachers - please stop with that logical fallacy. It makes as much sense as ignoring a murderer just because there's a serial killer on the lose. If you have a chance to get the murderer, do it, while you continue to try to get the serial killer. I and others are focusing on poaching, and industrial farming, and over whaling, and whole bunch of other issues. But that is not what this thread is about. Please stick to the original point.

As for what's wrong with using legitimate services as Kendall does - this goes back to ethics. When there are better options, we have a duty to choose the better options instead. I recommended this in a previous response, but please look up Peter Singer. There are much smarter people working out the problem of ethics that humanity owes to this planet - look him up and you will answer your own question.

Sources - the point is that those animals wouldn't have been driven to extinction in the first place if it weren't for humans killing them. I acknowledge that some of the money is going to conservation efforts, but I am presenting that there are much better options that accomplish the same without the killing. Again, goes back to ethics.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:04 UTC+1 No.1663577 Report

>>1663517
That link is pretty cool.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:50 UTC+1 No.1663599 Report

>>1663573
>there are tons of people donating money without any interest other than to help
Yep. But there are just as many rich hunters who want to hunt.

>The point is that there are tons of better methods and organizations
Use both resources. It's simple. Also, the hunters have made a huge difference. Don't ignore that.

>Doesn't society have an ethical obligation to support them instead?
No, it doesn't. Society is NOT obligated to have the same "ethics" as you, the same way you aren't obligated to the ethics of a Christian, Muslim, vegan, BDSM enthusiast, or a white supremacist. You can't force your thoughts on anyone, and you can't say your priorities are superior. When it comes to the numbers, these hunters give far more than they take to the species they're killing, so they are morally just. The end.

> It makes as much sense as ignoring a murderer just because there's a serial killer on the lose.
No, that's a terrible comparison.

It's more like there's a murderer actively killing a girl, and you're focusing on telling her how to have better eating habit instead of rescuing her.

There's one group being acted on: rare animals. Then there are hunters who are greatly helping while minimally killing, and detrimental poachers. You focus on the hunters. Why complain about them when there is a giant, glaring, extremely URGENT issue with poachers? Why protest and complain and waste your time when it literally is INCOMPARABLE to the issue of poachers?

It isn't a fallacy. You can not claim to be morally superior, to make decisions based on ethics, and then focus so much of your time on such a trivial, emotionally charged nonissue. It's absolutely disgusting.

>there are much better options that accomplish the same
Both conservation efforts help. Animal rights groups even agree with this. It is possible for BOTH to happen since BOTH have shown a significant amount of positivity in the right direction.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)01:06 UTC+1 No.1663607 Report

>>1663529
>Its not justificable by any means.
it's justifiable by the fact that they are helping protecting the animals they hunt.
So you are an idiot and a piece of shit.
go post on fb or tumblr, where your idiocy will be appreciated
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)01:07 UTC+1 No.1663608 Report

>>1663429


/k/ here

fuck off, babby
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:37 UTC+1 No.1663666 Report

>>1663607
You're a fucking Neanderthal, get with the program:

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/26/opinion/pacelle-elephant-poaching/index.html
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:52 UTC+1 No.1663678 Report

>>1663533
>How about donating that money without killing, the effect would be the same, minus some dead animals.

I wasn't aware that the animals she was hunting were immortal.

Guess what, in those shithole third world countries 95% of the money for conservation is put in corrupt people's pockets. The people living there simply do not give a flying fuck. The only reason why those animals will be kept around is for tourism and benefits associated with it, be they photographers or hunters. They're doing a lot more good for the well being of these creatures than you whining about it on the internet ever will.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:54 UTC+1 No.1663682 Report

>>1663441

Oh. good to know.

I never understood hunters. What kind of sick fuck sees a majestic animal and says to themselves, "I want it dead"

That being said, if what you are saying is true, then good for her. She may be odd, but I don't give a fuck.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)03:05 UTC+1 No.1663691 Report

>>1663429
Fuck off shitposter.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)03:11 UTC+1 No.1663695 Report

>>1663441
>Trophy hunting does not harm the population, they pay big money which is used to help the population.
But when they go after the biggest, most impressive member of a population it can result in a weaker gene pool
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.